Is the natural state of human society hierarchal no matter what?
>>18602350Yes, even children form hierarchies. And it's not even an inherently bad thing. After all, you want the guy with the most experience leading the team, don't you? Do you want the doctor who's been practicing for 30 years and has thousands of successful surgeries under his belt in charge of your operation, or do you want the janitor telling him what to do?
>>18602359The janitor obviously. Im not a classist.
Hierarchy isn't the natural state, it is just a logical way to run a system.Rulers often call themselves "first citizen" or "king of kings" or something along those lines, because this is often what they are. You have a band of warriors and among them you have the "NCO" or someone with experience and respect making difficult decisions and resolving disagreements so they can continue to work as a team. You then have the officers talking about the wider goals of the company, and among them is the highest ranking officer who makes the final call. Then the high ranking officers in the brigade who have to think about logistics and wider matters that would not concern a NCO.Each rung of the ladder poses unique problems yet also allows them to delegate and avoid micromanagement. The same applies to most systems composed of humans. However this is all due to external pressures. The natural state is a small team of close knit men, like hunters, who might have a learned elder but who has to win the confidence of his subordinates rather than a complete stranger issuing dictats backed up by punishment if they don't follow orders.
Depends but you can limit the number of hierarchy >Dictator>Beating squads >Peasants that live inside a giant gulag countryThe beating squads ensure hierarchy arent formed inside the giant gulag via beating.Ofc the best guy will be forced to work more but he wont get any prize for it
>>18602350I always loved this image, one of the few genuinely witty pepes
>>18602350of course
>>18602350As long as there is biological inequality, social inequality is the natural consequence thereof.
>>18602350Early hunter-gathers were egalitarian; hierarchy emerged later from agriculture and accumulation of wealth and resources. Humans are both naturally hierarchial and natural resistant to excessive hierarchy
>>18602350No, like >>18604229 said but hierarchy rose to solve a problem, how do you organize an increasing number of people you have never met or aren't related to a common goal? Egalitarian systems only work in small clusters, where everyone knows everyone. That's why even modern democracy are a representative.
>>18602350Depends on what you understand by hierarchical. Every single human individual is different and unique so you may place them in an infinite number of different ordered collections. But humans aren't supposed to be governed by others, so here's where the "hierarchy" notions break.
